Polygamy in the Netherlands [Archive] - Comic Book Resources Forums

Samurai

10-05-2005, 09:01 AM

It looks like the "slippery slope" has slipped...

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/301
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46583

The Netherlands has legalized polygamy in all but name, granting a civil union to a man and two women.

Victor de Bruijn, 46, of Roosendaal "married" both Bianca, 31, and Mirjam, 35, in a ceremony Friday, the Brussels Journal reported.

"I love both Bianca and Mirjam, so I am marrying them both," said de Bruijn who previously was married to Bianca.
The 2nd article includes quotes from the ACLU showing they are fighting to get polygamy legalized in the US too...
In June, the president of the American Civil Liberties Union said polygamy is among the "fundamental rights" her organization will continue to defend.

During a question-and-answer session after a speech at Yale University, ACLU president Nadine Strossen stated that her organization has "defended the right of individuals to engage in polygamy."

Last year, a Utah polygamist, Rodney Holm, appealed convictions for sex offenses to the state Supreme Court, arguing the practice of polygamy is a constitutional right that never produced the social ills claimed by its opponents.

HomerJay

10-05-2005, 09:09 AM

Most guys have a tough enough time keeping ONE wife happy, so I'm not sure how well this would catch on in the states.

Wesley Dodds

10-05-2005, 09:19 AM

Bwa-ha-ha. Today polygamy; tomorrow, horse-fucking.

By the way, Samurai, what practice in the Netherlands do you think led to the legalisation of polygamy and why do you think that practice inevitably leads to the legalisation of polygamy?

Samurai, do you have a link for the full text of her comments? All I could find online was this exchange from 1997.

QUESTIONER: Nadine, a question for you. You seem to have made a very brief comment that seemed to have placed polygamy outside the big tent of protected civil rights. It seemed to be you said that briefly. I was just wondering if you're talking consenting adults in the privacy... Is there anything that would prevent you from speaking out in the defense of those civil rights?

NADINE: Many controversial things that the ACLU has done, including quite recently, is defending religious freedom of polygamous relationships. I think our most recent case, it was only a few years ago, was either in southern Utah or northern Arizona. There's a border area there where there are a number of fundamentalist Mormons who strongly believe in polygamy. It's against the law now, and we realistically recognize we have no chance of overturning that law. But the particular case raised the issue of whether somebody who had been in a polygamous relationship could be denied child custody, just on the basis of that.

In the context of examining our position on that case, we were attacked by the National Organization for Women and other women's rights organizations. There was a presumption that polygamous relationships are somehow sexist and detrimental to women's rights. I actually did quite a lot of reading and interviewed some of the women involved. Talk about blasting stereotypes. I must admit I sort of thought, you know, poor benighted women to be in this kind of relationship. We discovered that there were women who were lawyers and doctors and business women who were happily married to the same man, or living together with him in what they considered to be a marriage, who were saying this is the best thing from a feminist point of view because we don't have to sleep with him every time he wants, somebody else can do it. [laughter] We've got this wonderful women's support group, we take care of each other's kids. It wouldn't be my choice but I do defend their right to make it.

JOHN: That is so interesting because... [laughter] ...because theologically you have some polygamy allowed in the Old Testament the way divorce and other things were allowed, because of the hardness of heart. But by the time you get to the New Testament you are being restored to the order of creation, which is one man, one woman, one lifetime. It is interesting, I have heard feminist arguments in favor of polygamy for some of the arguments that you have just made. It is very interesting.

It's too bad, though, that they have to say that, well, you know, they don't have to sleep with the guy every time he wants to. Because the blessing of a man and woman loving each other fully in Genesis is that a man and a woman are to be one, and therefore he is never imposing his will. It is truly mutual submission as it says in Ephesians [5:21-33]. I think, and I haven't thought about this before, so this is the fun of a forum like this in thinking out loud. I probably would not write laws against polygamy.

NADINE: How about polyandry?

JOHN: Polyandry? Let's see, polyandry, that's the other way around, isn't it. Yeah, I just have no experience in talking about it. [laughter] Exactly. In other words, if you take a positive view to protect marriage and those who live outside of it are accountable, then yeah, I don't know if I would write laws against that. Again, this is thinking out loud, which means it's not a conclusion with confidence. But again, my conviction is that if you underscore and undergird what is in the order of creation and model it, that's the greatest power that we have in this culture. And then civil liberties to be based on the goodness of that. And those who live outside, so long as they're not depriving life, liberty, property, are accountable for the consequences.

NADINE: But you kept using the word... I'm fascinated and encouraged to hear that. But during your earlier remarks you kept using the word monogamy. Somehow this wouldn't be a monogamous, it would be a faithful, but not a monogamous...

JOHN: That's why I said this is a new idea for me to consider.

NADINE: You have to come up with a different word that would convey...

JOHN: No, I would say exactly the same. I would say that heterosexual, faithful, monogamous marriage, those who live outside... Well, if a culture allows multiple marriage by legal contract, well then you have a certain protection. But again, it's a new issue, it's fun, I haven't thought it out. So we'll see what happens.

QUESTIONER: I just hate it when I think out loud.

NADINE: I'm just thinking out loud. What if you combined polygamy and polyandry? You've separately agreed to both of them. Isn't that sort of like group sex?

[laughter]

JOHN: And you know, you've seen the bumper stickers. You know, group sex happens. I mean, the bottom line is that you have so many people who are engaged... For example, if a man has serial marriages, or if a man has a wife and he's philandering, or if he's just single and sleeping around? You know, what's the difference? As I continue to think out loud, which I like to do. I think we have difficulties in the issue of protecting those who move into polygamy or polyandry. I think it's far more complex at many levels. So I still have to keep thinking about that. But again, you know as I think those out the bottom line is the positive nature of marriage. Heterosexual. Faithful. Monogamous.

JeffreyWKramer

10-05-2005, 09:54 AM

Gosh, in the Netherlands, the government has taken the horrible step of letting people decide for themselves what their relationship will be, rather than thinking this is something which should be dictated either by the state or by persons outside that relationship.

How horrible!!

But, we know where you stand, Samurai, in terms of state power vs. individual liberties, and in regards to concepts like self-determination and respect for diversity and individual choice.

Wesley Dodds

10-05-2005, 09:56 AM

You know, Jeff, I came into this thread not sure about legalising polygamy, but already Nadine has convinced me that the state doesn't have the right to take away the right to self-determination, even ostensibly for people's own good:

In the context of examining our position on that case, we were attacked by the National Organization for Women and other women's rights organizations. There was a presumption that polygamous relationships are somehow sexist and detrimental to women's rights. I actually did quite a lot of reading and interviewed some of the women involved. Talk about blasting stereotypes. I must admit I sort of thought, you know, poor benighted women to be in this kind of relationship. We discovered that there were women who were lawyers and doctors and business women who were happily married to the same man, or living together with him in what they considered to be a marriage, who were saying this is the best thing from a feminist point of view because we don't have to sleep with him every time he wants, somebody else can do it. [laughter] We've got this wonderful women's support group, we take care of each other's kids. It wouldn't be my choice but I do defend their right to make it.

Food for thought.

JeffreyWKramer

10-05-2005, 10:02 AM

See, unlike totalitarian-tendency folk like Samurai, who will point to stuff like some quasi-Mormon dingbat forcing his underage nieces and daughters into "marriage" and label that as the face of polygamy/polyamory, I know actual, real people who engage in this sort of relationship. It's definitely not for everyone, and it's even harder to make work than a typical dyadic relationship, but there are still people for whom it works - and I've never witnessed it to be inherently anti-male or any of that crap.

I know triads of two males and one female, and of two females and one male, and groupings of two couples - some in which each partner has two partners of the opposite sex, and some in which each has three partners - which work just fine for all involved, including kids, and are as healthy as any other relationship you might want to point to.

"One man, one woman" is no more logically or inherently right than "one man and one woman of the same racial grouping."

Shellhead

10-05-2005, 10:11 AM

Nadine: "We discovered that there were women who were lawyers and doctors and business women who were happily married to the same man, or living together with him in what they considered to be a marriage, who were saying this is the best thing from a feminist point of view because we don't have to sleep with him every time he wants, somebody else can do it."

I have a problem with this statement. Does Nadine feel that it's normal and acceptable for married women to sleep with their husband every time he wants sex? I've never been married, but I have lived with women, and I find the idea of sex every time I want it to be unrealistic and frankly oppressive. I would never insist on bringing additional women into the relationship just to satisfy my sexual desires, let alone try to share my love with more than one woman at a time.

Don't get me wrong, I'm thrilled by the idea of a threesome with a couple of sexy bisexual women. It's just that I think an actual threesome would destroy any of the relationships that I've ever been in, in one way or another. And maybe I'm old-fashioned in this respect, but I don't believe that it's actually possible to feel romantic love for more than one person at a time.

StoneGold

10-05-2005, 10:12 AM

That slippery slope can't come fast enough. I just bought me a turtle, and it's giving me the eye. You know, wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more?

JeffreyWKramer

10-05-2005, 10:13 AM

And maybe I'm old-fashioned in this respect, but I don't believe that it's actually possible to feel romantic love for more than one person at a time.

And maybe it's not possible for you - or, perhaps, for most people - but does that mean it's not possible for some people, or that if it is possible, it's still okay to force such people into a "one size fits all" view of relationships?

JeffreyWKramer

10-05-2005, 10:14 AM

That slippery slope can't come fast enough. I just bought me a turtle, and it's giving me the eye. You know, wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more?

Just wash your hands after. Turtles, snakes and other reptiles often carry salmonella.

The Dosadi Experiment

10-05-2005, 10:15 AM

You know being from the Netherlands, this is the first time I ever heard of polygamy being legal in all but name.

Jeff Brady

10-05-2005, 10:18 AM

That slippery slope can't come fast enough. I just bought me a turtle, and it's giving me the eye. You know, wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more?

Is your turtle into...photographs (he asked him knowingly)?

JeffreyWKramer

10-05-2005, 10:18 AM

You know being from the Netherlands, this is the first time I ever heard of polygamy being legal in all but name.

Yet it's a huge slippery-slope which will engulf the world, bring about the fall of western civilization and force everyone to marry three people of the same sex and a Rotweiller!!

StoneGold

10-05-2005, 10:20 AM

Yet it's a huge slippery-slope which will engulf the world, bring about the fall of western civilization and force everyone to marry three people of the same sex and a Rotweiller!!
Nah, Rotweillers are too sexually repressed. All the peanut butter in the world can't sway them.

Now border collies, on the other hand...

Slam_Bradley

10-05-2005, 10:22 AM

I find it difficult to believe that the ACLU can overcome 300+ years of precident and find a constitutional right to polygamy that doesn't exist.

The Dosadi Experiment

10-05-2005, 10:22 AM

Yet it's a huge slippery-slope which will engulf the world, bring about the fall of western civilization and force everyone to marry three people of the same sex and a Rotweiller!!

I find it surprising that this gets picked up by the Brussels Journal, but I haven't heard anything about it in a newspaper or newsbulletin here.

Joe Rice

10-05-2005, 10:23 AM

Eradicate Them All. Bomb Them. Destroy All!

Phrozen

10-05-2005, 10:27 AM

Noah Johnson

10-05-2005, 10:28 AM

And maybe I'm old-fashioned in this respect, but I don't believe that it's actually possible to feel romantic love for more than one person at a time.
You can believe it or not, but I'm actually doing it, so I would respectfully submit that it is in fact possible.

And frankly, threesomes are the least interesting part.

The Dosadi Experiment

10-05-2005, 10:30 AM

From an evolutionary standpoint for the normal person monogamy is the best mating strategy especially for women.

No it isn't.

Polygamy is the best mating strategy, for both men and women, because it helps creates a more diverse genepool.

Monogomy, marriage, it isn't evolutionary.

JeffreyWKramer

10-05-2005, 10:31 AM

Unfortunetly, cultures where polygamy is widely practiced are rather violent both towards women and men. Especially women since you can always get another wife.
That isn't true among the polynesian cultures I'm aware of which practice such relationships, nor was it true (at least toward members of the culture) among Native American cultures with such arrangements.

Then there is the inheritence and ohter nastiness when children come into the picture.
Yes, we should let economic arguments dictate individual liberties. Good thing the South didn't have you on their side during the Civil War.

Like I've said before, since courts and legislatures have managed to deal with questions of divided property when it comes to corporations, I'm confident it would be relative childsplay to deal with this sort of issue.

From an evolutionary standpoint for the normal person monogamy is the best mating strategy especially for women.
And we should be slaves to evolution, and turn to accidents of history and biology as the ultimate source of morality. Ban birth control! Eugenics yay!

But, thanks for playing.

SOGG

10-05-2005, 10:35 AM

We discovered that there were women who were lawyers and doctors and business women who were happily married to the same man, or living together with him in what they considered to be a marriage, who were saying this is the best thing from a feminist point of view because we don't have to sleep with him every time he wants, somebody else can do it. [laughter]

You know, this is a really good point. Sometimes one or the other is super horny but the other one's tired/has a headache, etc. Have that happen a couple of times and there's a spot of trouble brewing, eh?

And while this may just be inexperience talking, wouldn't it be cool to have multiple moms/dads?
I agree that certain complications may occur with regard to discipline, etc., but wouldn't the benefits outweigh the costs?

For example: - additional help with respect to nursing a growing kid. (sleepless nights distributed)
- greater breadth of experience than any single person
- the experience of rearing a child is now dispersed to more people.
- Since not everyone has to be parenting all the time, patience is tried less.

I'm sure there are more. From my experience though, the benefits have been the following:

1.) No cheating -- what's the point? You're allowed multiple partners anyway.
2.) Wider variety of play options. Also, the month thing doesn't get in the way as much.
3.) You can explore bicuriosity with people you know.

There are downsides too, but I'm sure we'll see them brought up.

Phrozen

10-05-2005, 10:36 AM

No it isn't.

Polygamy is the best mating strategy, for both men and women, because it helps creates a more diverse genepool.

Monogomy, marriage, it isn't evolutionary.

No, the ultimate goal is to reproduce sucessfully and have your child pass on it's genes. The goal isn't to have as diverse a genepool as possible. Polygamy makes sure that the man splits his resources between several women meaning that each of his offspring is invested in less. Polygamy is not the best mating strategy for women because their child is not getting the investment it would get if the male practiced monogamy and thus has a worse chance of reproducing.

HomerJay

10-05-2005, 10:37 AM

Eradicate Them All. Bomb Them. Destroy All!

All your wives are belong to us.

JeffreyWKramer

10-05-2005, 10:39 AM

No, the ultimate goal is to reproduce sucessfully and have your child pass on it's genes. The goal isn't to have as diverse a genepool as possible. Polygamy makes sure that the man splits his resources between several women meaning that each of his offspring is invested in less. Polygamy is not the best mating strategy for women because their child is not getting the investment it would get if the male practiced monogamy and thus has a worse chance of reproducing.

So, women shouldn't be allowed to make their own choice whether or not to be involved in a multiple-partner relationship because of the genetics of reproduction?

Bad arguments - whether applied to gay marriage, poly, or whatever - just don't die, do they?

The Dosadi Experiment

10-05-2005, 10:41 AM

No, the ultimate goal is to reproduce sucessfully and have your child pass on it's genes. The goal isn't to have as diverse a genepool as possible.

Wrong, diversity for a species = greater chances at survival for the species. And the man reproduces, just like the women do, their genes are secure.

Polygamy makes sure that the man splits his resources between several women meaning that each of his offspring is invested in less. Polygamy is not the best mating strategy for women because their child is not getting the investment it would get if the male practiced monogamy and thus has a worse chance of reproducing.

Wrong again, you're confusing finances with evolution and biology. If you want to make this an ideological discussion then just say so, if you want to harp on and on and on about this on a moral level, then say so, but don't pretend that you're going for science and biology and evolution when you know next to nothing about those topics and just throw in some pop-science robbed from a political pundit that only has rethoric.

Phrozen

10-05-2005, 10:43 AM

That isn't true among the polynesian cultures I'm aware of which practice such relationships, nor was it true (at least toward members of the culture) among Native American cultures with such arrangements.

South American tribes and Middle Eastern peoples who practice polygamy are rather violent to their spouses. In the case of South American tribes there is alot of male-male violence as well.

Yes, we should let economic arguments dictate individual liberties. Good thing the South didn't have you on their side during the Civil War.

Like I've said before, since courts and legislatures have managed to deal with questions of divided property when it comes to corporations, I'm confident it would be relative childsplay to deal with this sort of issue.

It isn't the courts and legislatures you would have to worry about. It is the other mates. Face it, mothers want their kid to have the most investment and status in general.

And we should be slaves to evolution, and turn to accidents of history and biology as the ultimate source of morality. Ban birth control! Eugenics yay!

But, thanks for playing.

Thank you for building a nice strawman. The Eugenics movement took evolution and got the wrong conclusion from it. There is no ultimate goal of evolution but people have an ultimate goal and that is to reproduce and pass on their genetics. Mongamy actually accomplishes that goal the best.

Adam Crocker

10-05-2005, 10:45 AM

It looks like the "slippery slope" has slipped...

Has it? Going by your previous arguments you seem to be arguing that legalizing gay marriage led to this, but as pointed out many times in response to Stanley Kurtz's claims that it has led to a decline in marriages in the country, the Netherlands' culture is so much more liberal in social mores it isn't really clear whether legalizing gay marriage led to the loosening of those mores or was legalized because of them. Similar applies to this case.

As to whether it is harmful I don't think that this is immediately clear. Yes it's a terrible practice among unreconstructed Mormons though that culture is already rather regressive and patriarchial in its attitudes towards women, so it doesn't tell me if polygamy would be the same under a different culture with attitudes more similar to North America and Western Europe's in regards to sexes.

Eradicate Them All. Bomb Them. Destroy All!

I'm glad to see that you agree with my solution for dealing with Nickelback Joe. :p

StoneGold

10-05-2005, 10:46 AM

South American tribes and Middle Eastern peoples who practice polygamy are rather violent to their spouses. In the case of South American tribes there is alot of male-male violence as well.

As opposed to the complete lack of male-female only spousal abuse.

Adam Crocker

10-05-2005, 10:46 AM

Wesley Dodds

10-05-2005, 10:46 AM

South American tribes and Middle Eastern peoples who practice polygamy are rather violent to their spouses. In the case of South American tribes there is alot of male-male violence as well.

If some cultures with polygamy have high spousal violence and some with polygamy don't then surely it's more rational to conclude that polygamy does not cause spousal violence?

Phrozen

10-05-2005, 10:47 AM

Wrong, diversity for a species = greater chances at survival for the species. And the man reproduces, just like the women do, their genes are secure.

Actually, you are wrong. You are looking at it from a species point of view, not an individuals.

Wrong again, you're confusing finances with evolution and biology. If you want to make this an ideological discussion then just say so, if you want to harp on and on and on about this on a moral level, then say so, but don't pretend that you're going for science and biology and evolution when you know next to nothing about those topics and just throw in some pop-science robbed from a political pundit that only has rethoric.

Do you know what the term investment means to a biological anthropologist? It doesn't just mean money. It means time, resources, teaching the offspring, giving status to the offsrping, etc. Obviously, I am not the one who doesn't know his science.

JeffreyWKramer

10-05-2005, 10:50 AM

I find it difficult to believe that the ACLU can overcome 300+ years of precident and find a constitutional right to polygamy that doesn't exist.

In contrast, I find it difficult to see any logical/rational argument that it is a matter in which the state has any legitimate interest or power.

SOGG

10-05-2005, 10:52 AM

Actually, you are wrong. You are looking at it from a species point of view, not an individuals.
<snipped for space>

So.... seeing as this is an individual goal sort of thing, wouldn't it be best to leave that decision to.... I dunno.... individuals?

JeffreyWKramer

10-05-2005, 10:54 AM

It isn't the courts and legislatures you would have to worry about.
They're the ones involved in whether or not something is a legal matter.

It is the other mates.
So, should the courts/legislatures also dictate who can date who, in order to try to minimize chances of domestic abuse?

Thank you for building a nice strawman.
Not straw at all. Genetic arguments have minimal to no legitimacy in regard to matters of morality or social policy. In contrast, core concepts of government - like, individual liberties, in the case of the US - are a legitimate concern.

There is no ultimate goal of evolution but people have an ultimate goal and that is to reproduce and pass on their genetics. Mongamy actually accomplishes that goal the best.
Who cares? People who can't have kids can still marry. Marriage isn't soley about reproduction, nor has it ever been.

Paul McEnery

10-05-2005, 10:54 AM

Do you know what the term investment means to a biological anthropologist? It doesn't just mean money. It means time, resources, teaching the offspring, giving status to the offsrping, etc. Obviously, I am not the one who doesn't know his science.
Why yes, I do.

The term for the spare female amongst primates is the "allomother" -- quite a common thing.

Also common amongst primates is cheating, on both sides of the fence.

And of course amongst our closest relatives, we have the Bonobos, where the females share the sperm of a single male during the ladie's excuse me -- when he's done, the second female taps him on the shoulder, then muscles in on his date.

They are, of course, the most peaceable of primates.

Phrozen

10-05-2005, 10:55 AM

So.... seeing as this is an individual goal sort of thing, wouldn't it be best to leave that decision to.... I dunno.... individuals?

Considering that Dosadi was trying to agrue for polygamy using the genetic diversity arguement, I was just saying that polygamy isn't the best strategy for the individual.

JeffreyWKramer

10-05-2005, 10:55 AM

If some cultures with polygamy have high spousal violence and some with polygamy don't then surely it's more rational to conclude that polygamy does not cause spousal violence?

No, people being assholes causes domestic violence. Yet assholes are allowed to marry.

The Dosadi Experiment

10-05-2005, 10:56 AM

Actually, you are wrong. You are looking at it from a species point of view, not an individuals.

then stop pretending you know something about evolution, because evolution has nothing to do with the individual and everything to do with the species.

Do you know what the term investment means to a biological anthropologist? It doesn't just mean money. It means time, resources, teaching the offspring, giving status to the offsrping, etc. Obviously, I am not the one who doesn't know his science.

and I still stand by my statement, investment is no longer a matter of just biology, or better yet just evolution, and has everything to do with ideology, economics and social engineering.

Besides the most obvious flaw in your reasoning is a family with multiple children. Or a family with a non-present father figure. And are you honestly going to tell me that the best "mating-solution" and the most favorable condition for evolution is having only 1 child?

JeffreyWKramer

10-05-2005, 10:56 AM

Actually, you are wrong. You are looking at it from a species point of view, not an individuals.

Do you know what the term investment means to a biological anthropologist? It doesn't just mean money. It means time, resources, teaching the offspring, giving status to the offsrping, etc. Obviously, I am not the one who doesn't know his science.

And why does this matter in terms of rights, liberties or social policies???

The Dosadi Experiment

10-05-2005, 10:57 AM

From an evolutionary standpoint for the normal person monogamy is the best mating strategy especially for women.

oops, your own words thrown right back in your face, you started the evolution argument, not me.

Phrozen

10-05-2005, 10:58 AM

Why yes, I do.

The term for the spare female amongst primates is the "allomother" -- quite a common thing.

Also common amongst primates is cheating, on both sides of the fence.

And of course amongst our closest relatives, we have the Bonobos, where the females share the sperm of a single male during the ladie's excuse me -- when he's done, the second female taps him on the shoulder, then muscles in on his date.

They are, of course, the most peaceable of primates.

Of course primates cheat. Who said that they didn't? Bonobos are one of the more peaceable primates (Gibbons are also pretty peaceable and they pair bond). There are several theories why Bonobos are like this but to actually figure out why this behavior developed you would need a time machine.

Corrina

10-05-2005, 11:00 AM

But...isn't it better for *me* to have two strong, handsome male providers rather than one?

I need more bon-bons, dammit! Back to work!

Phrozen

10-05-2005, 11:00 AM

oops, your own words thrown right back in your face, you started the evolution argument, not me.

and you haven't proved me wrong. For humans monogamy is the best mating strategy. Notice the qualifier best and not the qualifier only.

The Dosadi Experiment

10-05-2005, 11:01 AM

cheating = polygamy

as you can't keep to your assigned partner. You bring in a third, a fourth, a fifth into the equation. On paper you are in a monogamous relationship, but in practice you aren't.

Monogamy is state/religiously imposed, not biologically, at least not in humans.

The Watcher

10-05-2005, 11:01 AM

In contrast, I find it difficult to see any logical/rational argument that it is a matter in which the state has any legitimate interest or power.Well, if polygamy is going to have actual legal ramifications then the state is going to be involved. Matters like child custody, inheritance, being able to refuse to testify against one's spouse, and other benefits of marriage depend on state recognition of the relationship.

Now, if you just want to live together informally in a household then yeah the state has no business at all either way. But when you are trying to formalize the relationship into a marriage then it becomes a matter of state interest.

I'm not saying that makes polygamy wrong or something that government should oppose. I just want to point out that anyone trying to get it recognized as a partnership in the eyes of the law with all the rights and benefits that come with marriage is by definition asking the state to become involved in some capacity, if only in the capacity of keeping track of who's hooked up with who "officially."

StoneGold

10-05-2005, 11:01 AM

But...isn't it better for *me* to have two strong, handsome male providers rather than one?

I need more bon-bons, dammit! Back to work!
No, you get your ass back in the kitchen and shut up!

The Dosadi Experiment

10-05-2005, 11:02 AM

and you haven't proved me wrong. For humans monogamy is the best mating strategy. Notice the qualifier best and not the qualifier only.

you've yet to prove this with actual facts, and with facts we don't mean moronic rethoric.

JeffreyWKramer

10-05-2005, 11:06 AM

Well, if polygamy is going to have actual legal ramifications then the state is going to be involved. Matters like child custody, inheritance, being able to refuse to testify against one's spouse, and other benefits of marriage depend on state recognition of the relationship.

I'm not saying that makes polygamy wrong or something that government should oppose. I just want to point out that anyone trying to get it recognized as a partnership in the eyes of the law with all the rights and benefits that come with marriage is by definition inviting the state to become involved.

Sure. The thing is, some argue against it on the basis that it will be a hassle to the court system. To that argument, I say "So what?" I'm firmly of the camp that the government exists only to serve the needs of the people. Government has no legitimate interest outside that parameter, and as such, something being a hassle to the government is irrelevant as to whether individuals should be able to do that "something."

JeffreyWKramer

10-05-2005, 11:07 AM

and you haven't proved me wrong.

And, you've provided no rationale as to why this line of argument is the least bit relevant to matters of social policy, law, etc.

JeffreyWKramer

10-05-2005, 11:07 AM

But...isn't it better for *me* to have two strong, handsome male providers rather than one?
Samurai says no, so it must not be.

SOGG

10-05-2005, 11:09 AM

Considering that Dosadi was trying to agrue for polygamy using the genetic diversity arguement, I was just saying that polygamy isn't the best strategy for the individual.

But you're talking about evolution, as he quotes somewhere in the thread.
Are you making the argument that the evolutionary goal of each individual is to pass on his genes to his offspring?

My biology isn't what it used to be, but that sounds... incorrect.

west3man

10-05-2005, 11:10 AM

Just wash your hands after. Turtles, snakes and other reptiles often carry salmonella.
*tells Rally that Jeff's talkin' 'bout Smoogis*

Shellhead

10-05-2005, 11:11 AM

you've yet to prove this with actual facts, and with facts we don't mean moronic rethoric.

Facts will be hard to come by, since we don't have much hard data to compare within a given culture, where they tried polygamy and then outlawed it, or did the opposite and legalized it.

But from the standpoint of one woman, polygamy would be disadvantageous, because she and her children will be competing with the other wives and their kids for attention, money and living space. Those are finite resources, and history is filled with examples of humans engaging in violence when competing for limited resources.

I admit that this is (mostly) a financial viewpoint, because that is my area of expertise. From a personal standpoint, I will add that virtually all women I have been involved with seem to enjoy shopping, and when I worked for a law firm that did a lot of family law, money issues were a major factor that contributed to divorce. So the financial angle is relevant to this discussion.

BlairH

10-05-2005, 11:12 AM

Unfortunetly, cultures where polygamy is widely practiced are rather violent both towards women and men. Especially women since you can always get another wife. Then there is the inheritence and ohter nastiness when children come into the picture. From an evolutionary standpoint for the normal person monogamy is the best mating strategy especially for women.

Exactly.
I'd go as far as to say that polygamy is a dangerous perversion. (I'd say more but my lack of experience precludes me from talking about such things in a credible manner, but I'll say Phrozen and Shellhead have it nailed)

Samurai has a valid point (and has been right all along it seems). there IS a slippery slope in action, and whilst I disagree with his stance on gay marriage (I believe gay marriage should be 100% legal, whereas he favours civil unions), I believe a line has to be drawn somewhere in order to prevent polygamy and concubines, and hareems and stuff.

Shellhead

10-05-2005, 11:14 AM

Monogamy is state/religiously imposed, not biologically, at least not in humans.

Jealousy is not state/religiously imposed, but it's a very common emotion. You can deny if you want, but it seems to be a basic (though unpleasant) part of being human.

west3man

10-05-2005, 11:17 AM

I have a problem with this statement. Does Nadine feel that it's normal and acceptable for married women to sleep with their husband every time he wants sex? I've never been married, but I have lived with women, and I find the idea of sex every time I want it to be unrealistic and frankly oppressive. There's a certain amount of guilt associated with being the one person who can (or is allowed to) fulfill your loved-one's needs... but being (unable, but mostly) unwilling to do so. In addition, lack of sexual fulfillment has lead to the demise of many a relationship.

Having another "source" could alleviate some of that pressure. That pressure isn't solely due to husbands or partners who are ogres, btw.

I would never insist on bringing additional women into the relationship just to satisfy my sexual desires, let alone try to share my love with more than one woman at a time. There's a difference between insisting on BRINGING another person into the relationship and favoring such a relationship, which just happens to have this additional benefit.

The Watcher

10-05-2005, 11:18 AM

I believe a line has to be drawn somewhere in order to prevent polygamy and concubines, and hareems and stuff.You'll be believing differently if you get a chance to get harem. :p

JeffreyWKramer

10-05-2005, 11:18 AM

I'd go as far as to say that polygamy is a dangerous perversion. (I'd say more but my lack of experience precludes me from talking about such things in a credible manner, but I'll say Phrozen and Shellhead have it nailed)
So, you admit to your lack of knowledge. So, upon what basis do you base this judgment? "Dangerous" how. The limited available information such relationships demonstrates that kids raised in such relationships end up as competent members of their society at the same rates as kids in other sorts of relationships/societies. There's no evidence that trauma and abuse are inherent to such arrangements. So, what "danger" exists?

west3man

10-05-2005, 11:20 AM

No, the ultimate goal is to reproduce sucessfully and have your child pass on it's genes. The goal isn't to have as diverse a genepool as possible. Polygamy makes sure that the man splits his resources between several women meaning that each of his offspring is invested in less. Polygamy is not the best mating strategy for women because their child is not getting the investment it would get if the male practiced monogamy and thus has a worse chance of reproducing. I thought you were going to say that paternity tests (which many here know I'm highly in favor of) would damn-near be a necessity in such relationships.

I think your argument has merit, but moreso in a tangential discussion. Still, people have used similar arguments to explain why The State ought to be involved in or encourage marriages, at all, so I don't think it's the worst thing to bring up.

Slam_Bradley

10-05-2005, 11:21 AM

In contrast, I find it difficult to see any logical/rational argument that it is a matter in which the state has any legitimate interest or power.

I'm sure that you do. I'm not making the argument that it is a legitimate interest of the state. What it isn't, however, is a Constitutional issue. There is no mention in the Constitution of a right to polygamy. Further, since polygamy was well known at the time the Constitution was written and it was a crime in thirteen of the thirteen colonies/states it cannot reasonably be implied that there is a right to polygamy implied in the Constitution. Which leaves it under the rubric of the 9th and/or 10th Amendments.

Now, considering that polygamy is a crime in 50 of 50 states, I think it is reasonable to assume that the States have asserted their interest in the area pursuant to the 10th Amendment. This is not surprising, considering that the states have always asserted the right to determine the requirements for marriage.

More interesting would be if one state were to legalize polygamy and what effect the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" of the Constitution would have.

StoneGold

10-05-2005, 11:21 AM

So, you admit to your lack of knowledge. So, upon what basis do you base this judgment? "Dangerous" how. The limited available information such relationships demonstrates that kids raised in such relationships end up as competent members of their society at the same rates as kids in other sorts of relationships/societies. There's no evidence that trauma and abuse are inherent to such arrangements. So, what "danger" exists?
Because the thought of it gets his naughty bits all tingling, and let's face it, Blair's naughty bits tingling is a danger none of us want to face.

BlairH

10-05-2005, 11:22 AM

So, you admit to your lack of knowledge. So, upon what basis do you base this judgment? "Dangerous" how. The limited available information such relationships demonstrates that kids raised in such relationships end up as competent members of their society at the same rates as kids in other sorts of relationships/societies. There's no evidence that trauma and abuse are inherent to such arrangements. So, what "danger" exists?

We see in societies where poly is commonplace that women are treated more as a commodity than a human. I admit that my bias against poly is based more on emotion than logic, but that doesn't mean that it's a standpoint I can't take. It's a personal thing.

This is proof enough for me to stay away from that can of worms.

JeffreyWKramer

10-05-2005, 11:24 AM

I'm sure that you do. I'm not making the argument that it is a legitimate interest of the state. What it isn't, however, is a Constitutional issue. There is no mention in the Constitution of a right to polygamy.

There's no mention in the Constitution of a right to marriage, either. Yet the US Supreme Court found it to be a fundamental right, though one not enumerated in the Constitution, in Loving v. Virginia.

Further, since polygamy was well known at the time the Constitution was written and it was a crime in thirteen of the thirteen colonies/states it cannot reasonably be implied that there is a right to polygamy implied in the Constitution. Which leaves it under the rubric of the 9th and/or 10th Amendments.

Sodomy laws existed then, too, but have since been eliminated - and completely rightly, IMHO - on the basis of privacy rights and equal protection.

StoneGold

10-05-2005, 11:26 AM

We see in societies where poly is commonplace that women are treated more as a commodity than a human. I admit that my bias against poly is based more on emotion than logic, but that doesn't mean that it's a standpoint I can't take. It's a personal thing.

This is proof enough for me to stay away from that can of worms.
We see the same in non-poly societies. So it seems to me what you're saying is that all human sexual relationships should be banned.

JeffreyWKramer

10-05-2005, 11:27 AM

We see in societies where poly is commonplace that women are treated more as a commodity than a human.

In some societies, this is true. But, it has been true in most societies - including the US - in the past, and it hasn't been true in all societies allowing poly relationships. Again, there are polynesian cultures, and have previously been Native American cultures, in which such arrangements were fine and dandy, with no harm done. Show me some evidence it's innate to the relationship structure and you have an argument, but until then - you don't have one with any weight.

I admit that my bias against poly is based more on emotion than logic, but that doesn't mean that it's a standpoint I can't take. It's a personal thing. This is proof enough for me to stay away from that can of worms.
And why should your - or anyone's - emotional biases impact the decisions other consenting adults make about matters primarily impacting only themselves, or the choices which are allowed to them?

JeffreyWKramer

10-05-2005, 11:27 AM

We see the same in non-poly societies. So it seems to me what you're saying is that all human sexual relationships should be banned.

Some social conservatives would probably agree with that.

SOGG

10-05-2005, 11:29 AM

Some social conservatives would probably agree with that.

Good. Let them find out the hard way that that stork's not coming.

Michael P

10-05-2005, 11:31 AM

Today polygamy; tomorrow, horse-fucking.

Paris Hilton's DayPlanner.

i_mmmchocolate

10-05-2005, 11:33 AM

Personally, I think it's weird. That's my bias. But who friggin' cares? It's not like masses of people are going to marry multiple partners anyway.

SOGG

10-05-2005, 11:34 AM

But from the standpoint of one woman, polygamy would be disadvantageous, because she and her children will be competing with the other wives and their kids for attention, money and living space. Those are finite resources, and history is filled with examples of humans engaging in violence when competing for limited resources.
<snipped for space>

But polygamy isn't just about one man, multiple women. Polygamy is also one woman, multiple men (insert madrox joke here) as well as many women, many men.

Also, in the case that you mention, you're assuming that the male is the sole breadwinner. In a one man, multiple women relationship like that, it's actually possible for a few of the women to be stay at home moms and the rest to be breadwinners as well.

JeffreyWKramer

10-05-2005, 11:35 AM

Personally, I think it's weird. That's my bias. But who friggin' cares? It's not like masses of people are going to marry multiple partners anyway.

Bingo!

You know what? I don't think it would work for me, either. Trying to make a two-person relationship work well for both partners is challenging enough, thank you. But, there are people who do make poly relationships work just fine, so they *are* viable for at least some people - and I see no inherent reason the state/law should give favoritism over one set of viable choices compared to another.

Shellhead

10-05-2005, 11:45 AM

But polygamy isn't just about one man, multiple women. Polygamy is also one woman, multiple men (insert madrox joke here) as well as many women, many men.

Also, in the case that you mention, you're assuming that the male is the sole breadwinner. In a one man, multiple women relationship like that, it's actually possible for a few of the women to be stay at home moms and the rest to be breadwinners as well.

Technically, one woman with multiple husbands would be polyandry, but the same competition for limited resources would apply. For each individual man, he would be getting less affection and attention than he might otherwise get, and given that the vast majority of women are less interested in sex than men (this is beyond dispute, the economics are obvious to anybody familiar with the laws of supply and demand and the hourly rate for prostitutes), that makes that sack time an even more limited resource than in the polygamy scenario. Even if the woman is extremely kinky, she can only fit so much into her orifices at the same time.

Stepping away from an assumption that the male is the sole breadwinner, let's posit a situation where there is a household with one husband and three wives, and two wives (A & B) have one kid each, and one wife (C) has two kids. And let's further assume that all three women have jobs, as well as the husband.

Realistically, the man probably earns the most, because there is a gender gap in payrates in any country that I've ever heard of. Also, it's unlikely that these women have identical incomes, unless maybe they're triplets. Does it make sense for everybody to throw their income into one big bank account and share equally? Probably, but what does equal mean? Does wife C get to spend more money because she has two kids instead of one? If so, this gives the other wives incentive to have more kids, leading to a financial disaster unless one of these people is wealthy. If not, C may feel penalized, that she has less per capita to provide for her children. Oh, and believe me, these women will know and care very much which children they gave birth to.

And what happens when somebody wants a divorce? Given the high rate of divorce in industrialized nations these days, and the inherent emotional instability of polygamy/polyandry, the odds are much greater that one or more of these wives will want a divorce at some point, unless you believe that polygamy will tend to make everybody happier. I don't believe that.

Noah Johnson

10-05-2005, 11:45 AM

I admit that my bias against poly is based more on emotion than logic, but that doesn't mean that it's a standpoint I can't take.
I respect your putting it that way. However, you do acknowledge that logic may trump your initial emotional response, right?

Also, you fall into the trap of assuming that this is only about guys having multiple women, and not the other way round. Is there any basis for assuming that women would be more commodified than man in a modern, egalitarian society?

Let me give you an example. My girlfriend is upstairs in bed with her new boyfriend right now, as I'm typing this. Noisy little minx, too. This is fine by me, as she doesn't get to see him as often, and anyway I'm not really in the mood. Clearly I'm more in the mood to argue with bothersome Scots. :)

So is she being commodified? Am I? Or am I lying about my entire emotional makeup, a charge I've had leveled at me before by people to whom jealousy is a more important emotion than love?

Blair, I can't say this often enough: It is not as simple as you think.

Shellhead

10-05-2005, 11:48 AM

Bingo!

You know what? I don't think it would work for me, either. Trying to make a two-person relationship work well for both partners is challenging enough, thank you. But, there are people who do make poly relationships work just fine, so they *are* viable for at least some people - and I see no inherent reason the state/law should give favoritism over one set of viable choices compared to another.

Aside from the legal headaches, I can think of one possible reason for the state/law to discourage or forbid polygamy: for the sake of the kids. Of course, many kids are already dealing with comparable problems thanks to divorce, and yet it isn't realistic to force people into bonds of marriage that can't be broken.

JeffreyWKramer

10-05-2005, 11:51 AM

Even if the woman is extremely kinky, she can only fit so much into her orifices at the same time.
I'm reluctant to respond to this at all, for fear of giving the false impression that I consider this and related lines of reasoning provided in your post to constitute even vaguely-relevant arguments, but I couldn't really resist pointing out that a) your argument assumes sexual activities have to involve orifices, and b) even if she was to so limit herself, that still leaves open FMMM sorts of arrangements - not to mention the possibility of some of the Ms handling each other.
And what happens when somebody wants a divorce? Given the high rate of divorce in industrialized nations these days, and the inherent emotional instability of polygamy/polyandry, the odds are much greater that one or more of these wives will want a divorce at some point, unless you believe that polygamy will tend to make everybody happier. I don't believe that.
This will be a legitimate line of argument when risk of divorce is used to justify arguments against two-partner, heterosexual marriages.

Shellhead

10-05-2005, 11:52 AM

I respect your putting it that way. However, you do acknowledge that logic may trump your initial emotional response, right?

Also, you fall into the trap of assuming that this is only about guys having multiple women, and not the other way round. Is there any basis for assuming that women would be more commodified than man in a modern, egalitarian society?

Let me give you an example. My girlfriend is upstairs in bed with her new boyfriend right now, as I'm typing this. Noisy little minx, too. This is fine by me, as she doesn't get to see him as often, and anyway I'm not really in the mood. Clearly I'm more in the mood to argue with bothersome Scots. :)

So is she being commodified? Am I? Or am I lying about my entire emotional makeup, a charge I've had leveled at me before by people to whom jealousy is a more important emotion than love?

Blair, I can't say this often enough: It is not as simple as you think.

I've been in some complex situations, and it's my personal experience that complex relationships tend to be less happy than non-complex ones. If your current situation doesn't bother you, I admire your logical detachment but also find it somewhat inhuman. One of the worst experiences in my entire life was the first time I drove an ex-girlfriend turned prostitute to one of her "appointments." Sitting in the car, knowing that she was having sex with a stranger while I sat there, was truly awful. Even though we had broken up and were just friends, I still had some feelings for her, and it was painful. I suppose some guys would feel excited about it, but I'm not one of those guys.

JeffreyWKramer

10-05-2005, 11:53 AM

Aside from the legal headaches, I can think of one possible reason for the state/law to discourage or forbid polygamy: for the sake of the kids. Of course, many kids are already dealing with comparable problems thanks to divorce, and yet it isn't realistic to force people into bonds of marriage that can't be broken.

And, again, the limited research available (not to mention my own, though admittedly limited observations) provides no evidence that kids in poly situations end up any better or worse than kids from husband/wife situations.

StoneGold

10-05-2005, 12:05 PM

Seems like all the reasons people are giving, violence, twisted kids, etc, exist fairly regularly inside traditional marriage as well. The problem here is in what ratios. And quite frankly, I'm far too lazy to do the research.

But here's another question: the people who woul be likely to be involved in destructive polygamistic marriages, what are the odds they wouldn't engage in the same behavior in a traditional marriage?

JeffreyWKramer

10-05-2005, 12:07 PM

But here's another question: the people who woul be likely to be involved in destructive polygamistic marriages, what are the odds they wouldn't engage in the same behavior in a traditional marriage?
Virtually none.

The problem, again, is people, not the specifics of the marital arrangement.

If anyone has any *actual evidence* to counter that conclusion - as opposed to feelings, admitted biases, etc. - I'd sure like to see it.

Phrozen

10-05-2005, 12:10 PM

you've yet to prove this with actual facts, and with facts we don't mean moronic rethoric.

What advatnages does the male get in a mongamus relationship:
1) He is pretty sure that the child he is raising is his.
2) He can ensure better health and status of the offspring by investing in them.
3) Greater reproductive success through investment
What advantages does the male get in a polygamus relationship
1) He can have more sex but less reproductive success because his resources are divided up and not focused soley.

What advantages does the female get in a mongamus relationship:
1) She is sure that the male will invest in her and her child.

Now, if you add in more then one women then the female knows that the male isn't investing as much as he could in her and her offspring and it doesn't neccesarily increase the males reproductive success.

Corrina

10-05-2005, 12:15 PM

JeffreyWKramer

10-05-2005, 12:17 PM

Um, you're assuming this is always going to be a guy with a lot of wives situation and that the reverse won't happen.

Or three or more partners of the same gender.

Slam_Bradley

10-05-2005, 12:21 PM

There's no mention in the Constitution of a right to marriage, either. Yet the US Supreme Court found it to be a fundamental right, though one not enumerated in the Constitution, in Loving v. Virginia.

I'm going to respectfully disagree with you on both your assertions, my learned friend. The Court in Loving did not find a fundamental right to marriage. What the Court did, was strike down Virginia's miscegination laws based on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Equal Protection isn't reached in dealing with polygamy.

Sodomy laws existed then, too, but have since been eliminated - and completely rightly, IMHO - on the basis of privacy rights and equal protection.

Lawrence v. Texas was a terrible opinion, based on extremely slim legal reasoning to cover up for the fact that the majority of the Court was bowing to popular opinion.

The fundamental problem is that the Court has latched on to Justice Douglas' absurd reasoning in Griswold v. Connecticut and the Constitution has never recovered.

Shellhead

10-05-2005, 12:21 PM

Um, you're assuming this is always going to be a guy with a lot of wives situation and that the reverse won't happen.

:hides cabana boy:

Keep reading, I address polyandry as well.

JeffreyWKramer

10-05-2005, 12:25 PM

I'm going to respectfully disagree with you on both your assertions, my learned friend. The Court in Loving did not find a fundamental right to marriage. What the Court did, was strike down Virginia's miscegination laws based on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Equal Protection isn't reached in dealing with polygamy.

I don't have the text right here, but as I recall, the wording of the majority opinion specifically used the words "fundamental right" or some such in response to marriage.

As to the other, you and I obviously disagree re: the concept of a fundamental right to privacy.

Slam_Bradley

10-05-2005, 12:37 PM

I don't have the text right here, but as I recall, the wording of the majority opinion specifically used the words "fundamental right" or some such in response to marriage.

As to the other, you and I obviously disagree re: the concept of a fundamental right to privacy.

Well here's the text for the Loving opinion. Loving v. Virginia (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html)

As to the other...intellectually, I believe there is a fundamental right to privacy. I just don't find one in the Constitution. I'd dearly love to be able to find one without resorting to the horrendous contortions the Court performed in Griswold, but I can't.

SOGG

10-05-2005, 12:51 PM

Keep reading, I address polyandry as well.

Polyandry and polygyny are subsets of polygamy.

Shellhead

10-05-2005, 01:05 PM

Polyandry and polygyny are subsets of polygamy.

Oh. Well, I addressed both scenarios in my several posts to this thread.

SOGG

10-05-2005, 01:07 PM

Technically, one woman with multiple husbands would be polyandry, but the same competition for limited resources would apply. For each individual man, he would be getting less affection and attention than he might otherwise get, and given that the vast majority of women are less interested in sex than men (this is beyond dispute, the economics are obvious to anybody familiar with the laws of supply and demand and the hourly rate for prostitutes), that makes that sack time an even more limited resource than in the polygamy scenario. Even if the woman is extremely kinky, she can only fit so much into her orifices at the same time.

I addressed the semantic issue in a previous post, but I get what you must've thought. See the thing is, no one will be forced into this relationship. People will still be free to have 'traditional' marriages. If someone's not able to handle that many guys during the pre-marriage portion, it'll be quite obvious before they all get married. The kinks in the relationship will be worked out beforehand.

<snipped for space>
Realistically, the man probably earns the most, because there is a gender gap in payrates in any country that I've ever heard of. Also, it's unlikely that these women have identical incomes, unless maybe they're triplets. Does it make sense for everybody to throw their income into one big bank account and share equally?

Contrast this with what marriage is now. The husband and wife each have separate bank accounts as well as common bank accounts. There are all manner of financial arrangements possible. Pre nups don't magically disappear, either.

Probably, but what does equal mean? Does wife C get to spend more money because she has two kids instead of one? If so, this gives the other wives incentive to have more kids, leading to a financial disaster unless one of these people is wealthy. If not, C may feel penalized, that she has less per capita to provide for her children. Oh, and believe me, these women will know and care very much which children they gave birth to.

And that's the kind of planning these people have to do before they get married. Just like a normal couple.

And what happens when somebody wants a divorce? Given the high rate of divorce in industrialized nations these days, and the inherent emotional instability of polygamy/polyandry, the odds are much greater that one or more of these wives will want a divorce at some point, unless you believe that polygamy will tend to make everybody happier. I don't believe that.
I'm not aware that poly relationships were inherently emotionally unstable, but maybe you can provide some reading material? (non snarky, truly curious)

cactusmaac

10-05-2005, 01:12 PM

Well, I've lived in a society where polygamous marriages are legal under the law.

Can't say they result in a sexual Shangri-La where highly intelligent, consenting adults form a mutually supportive collective for the benefit of child support.

Most of time they occur because a husband finds wife no 1 to be getting on in years but he doesn't feel like splitting any assets with her and thus gets a second wife about twenty years younger.

Usually they result in a lot of intra-family jealousy and hurt feelings, especially among the children, along with low investment from the patriarch in ensuring his various kids grow up right in part due to indifference and in part due to a lack of time.

Quite a few of the fucked-up assholes I knew of, were from such families.

I'd say polygamy results in a more honest and stable situation than serial extramarital philandering, but it's not something I'd recommend.

Shellhead

10-05-2005, 01:15 PM

I addressed the semantic issue in a previous post, but I get what you must've thought. See the thing is, no one will be forced into this relationship. People will still be free to have 'traditional' marriages. If someone's not able to handle that many guys during the pre-marriage portion, it'll be quite obvious before they all get married. The kinks in the relationship will be worked out beforehand.

Contrast this with what marriage is now. The husband and wife each have separate bank accounts as well as common bank accounts. There are all manner of financial arrangements possible. Pre nups don't magically disappear, either.

And that's the kind of planning these people have to do before they get married. Just like a normal couple.

I'm not aware that poly relationships were inherently emotionally unstable, but maybe you can provide some reading material? (non snarky, truly curious)

How about some viewing? I own a copy of Raise the Red Lantern, and I haven't met any women who were able to watch that without getting angry. It's a period piece movie set in China, back when rich men took multiple wives, and this particular husband would have his servants hand a red lantern outside the quarters of the wife that he was planning to spend the night with. I don't know how historical it is.

Bottom line, there is scant historical support for communism as a successful economic arrangement, which is basically a society of people sharing with each other. Humans don't easily share and cooperate like that because we have strong tendencies towards selfish and materialistic behavior. A polygamous living arrangement would be like communism, only on a smaller scale, and would tend to fail for the same reasons. A two-person couple would tend to be much more stable, especially where each person cared for the other person more than themselves. That couple could have kids together, and love those kids as well, possibly but not necessarily sacrificing for the sake of those kids. Step-parents, even the nice ones, have more trouble making those sacrifices for kids that aren't their own.

Boldido

10-05-2005, 01:16 PM

In contrast, I find it difficult to see any logical/rational argument that it is a matter in which the state has any legitimate interest or power.

I have to disagree with a lot of the arguments you are making. There is a huge difference between prohibiting polyamorous relationships and allowing polyamorous marraige. I would wholeheartedly oppose any legislation that sought to forbid polyamory, but support the current prohibitions against polygamy.

In the case of gay marraige, the proponents state that the prohibition should be lifted because their relationships are exactly the same as heterosexual couples, just change the gender of one spouse. This would have no effect on taxation, inheritance, child custody or support or any one of a number of things that marraige touches. Polyamorous relationships can't say the same thing. There are too many problems that need to be overcome. Further, as the proponents of such a radical change, it falls upon the polyamorous community to come up with the solutions. You try to equate families with corporations, but this is a poor comparison. Corporate law could care less about feelings or the best interest of the children or any of a number of other things that enter the equation.

I have to run, I'll post more later, but I'm off to a little league game.

StoneGold

10-05-2005, 01:23 PM

How about some viewing? I own a copy of Raise the Red Lantern, and I haven't met any women who were able to watch that without getting angry. It's a period piece movie set in China, back when rich men took multiple wives, and this particular husband would have his servants hand a red lantern outside the quarters of the wife that he was planning to spend the night with. I don't know how historical it is.

.
Big deal, you could do the same with, oh, any Lifetime movie ever. And those rarely deal with polygamy.

west3man

10-05-2005, 01:25 PM

I thought child-custody and child-support were affected by such things. I've seen real and fictitious examples of how that could occur. It's also been mentioned on CBR multiple times.

JeffreyWKramer

10-05-2005, 01:28 PM

Well here's the text for the Loving opinion. Loving v. Virginia (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html)
And while you're correct as to the reasoning used in reaching the decision, the decision also includes the following statement, which was used as additional justification, and which (at least in my readings) has been taken by others to imply court precedent re: marriage = fundamental right.

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

Now, I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that while the Court in Loving focused on the equal protection/14th Amendment issues, there is a pretty clear statement there that marriage is a fundamental right.

JeffreyWKramer

10-05-2005, 01:30 PM

You try to equate families with corporations, but this is a poor comparison. Corporate law could care less about feelings or the best interest of the children or any of a number of other things that enter the equation.
The only comparison I'm making is in terms of complexity - if courts can handle the complexities of corporate law, I think they could manage poly marriage law just fine. I'm not suggesting that corporate statutes per se be applied to poly marriage.

SOGG

10-05-2005, 01:31 PM

How about some viewing? I own a copy of Raise the Red Lantern, <snipped for space> I don't know how historical it is.

I've watched almost every Gong Li and Zhang Yimou film. Including Yao a yao yao dao wai bo jiao. I'm not sure how that would translate into English, but it explores similar themes.

Zhang's a great filmmaker and some things he's able to do with one camera look like they're supposed to be impossible.

But no. Not historical. I'm sure something like it has happened somewhere, but it's hardly how all poly marriages turn out.

Cactus' argument however, that's something I have to think about for a bit.

Bottom line, there is scant historical support for communism as a successful economic arrangement, which is basically a society of people sharing with each other. Humans don't easily share and cooperate like that because we have strong tendencies towards selfish and materialistic behavior.

Um, what? Given the proper environment, humans share and cooperate just fine. Most of the amazing stuff we've accomplished as a race is due to sharing. Heck, we even give to complete strangers, as seen by the massive donations whenever some huge natural disaster strikes.

A polygamous living arrangement would be like communism, only on a smaller scale, and would tend to fail for the same reasons.

Still conjecture. But I'd love to read studies that prove otherwise.

A two-person couple would tend to be much more stable, especially where each person cared for the other person more than themselves.

And why wouldn't this be the case in a polygamous situation? Where each of the polygamists cared about everyone else more than themselves?

That couple could have kids together, and love those kids as well, possibly but not necessarily sacrificing for the sake of those kids. Step-parents, even the nice ones, have more trouble making those sacrifices for kids that aren't their own.

Speaking as someone raised mostly by myself with some help from my grandmum and aunt, I'm thinking I disagree.